Kudroli Builders And Infrastructure PVT LTD Thr. Managing Director, Ahmed Shafi vs. State Of Goa Thr. Secretary And 7 Ors

Facts

The Petitioner, Kudroli Builders and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated 13/9/2023 and an order dated 23/12/2023, which confirmed the demand for GST. The demand notice was issued by a GST authority, and the subsequent order was also made by a GST authority during the pendency of the writ petition. The Petitioner argued that the GST, if payable, should be borne by the end-user, which in this case is the State Government, and that this specific issue should be decided by the High Court. The Respondents, representing the State of Goa and GST authorities, contended that the Petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act against the order dated 23/12/2023, and that the demand notice has merged with this order.

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition, holding that the Petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the CGST Act. The Court reasoned that the issue raised by the Petitioner, concerning whether GST was payable at all or if it was payable by the end-user, can be effectively addressed by the appellate authority. The Court noted the pendency of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal's operationalization and referred to a previous order of the Court in Writ Petition No. 594/2023, which clarified that the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date the Tribunal is constituted and made operational. The Court also clarified that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act had not expired as of the hearing. Therefore, the Petitioner was granted liberty to avail of the alternate remedy, with all contentions of all parties left open to be raised before the appellate authority. The appeal, if instituted, should be disposed of on its merits. The Court explicitly left no issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, despite their contention that the GST is not payable by them but by the end-user (State Government)? Petitioner's Arguments: - The Petitioner argued that the issue of who is liable to pay GST, specifically that it should be the end-user (State Government) and not the Petitioner, is a fundamental question of law that this Court should decide. - They submitted that this core issue necessitates the High Court's intervention rather than relegating them to the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Respondents' Arguments: - The Respondents contended that the Petitioner has a statutory right of appeal under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act against the order dated 23/12/2023. - They argued that the demand notice dated 13/9/2023 has merged with the subsequent order dated 23/12/2023, making the appeal the appropriate recourse. - The Respondents further submitted that all issues, including the Petitioner's contention regarding end-user liability, can be adjudicated by the appellate authority.